Was thinking about KiwiTT’s removal of a generation or two comment yesterday, and I had a thought. Instead of people having no babies, therefore removing an entire workforce 20 years later, wouldnt it be better if we remove the costly end of the pyramid? Logan’s Run style? Starting with over 70’s, then over 60’s? How’s that Kiwi? Wouldn’t touch over 50’s though

Yeah ive thought about it, it's certainly not a fair system because there are plenty of worthless <60 yr olds taking more than they contribute. Some sort of end of life reward system based based on past performance may even it up though.

Was thinking about KiwiTT’s removal of a generation or two comment yesterday, and I had a thought. Instead of people having no babies, therefore removing an entire workforce 20 years later, wouldnt it be better if we remove the costly end of the pyramid? Logan’s Run style? Starting with over 70’s, then over 60’s? How’s that Kiwi? Wouldn’t touch over 50’s though

I think choosing to reduce the number of children being born is better, as they add multiple people, if they go on to have more children, whereas older people usually are menopausal and no can have children.

Climate change is expected to be more rapid and severe in polar regions compared to other places on Earth. Several positive feedback mechanisms exist, particularly for the Arctic, that can amplify the impacts of anthropogenic global warming. Decreases in the extent of snow and ice cover, for example, will lower surface reflectivity (albedo). As a result, incoming solar radiation will be absorbed by the darker surfaces, thereby enhancing warming of ocean and land. Similarly, a northward shift of biomes will lead to growth of more and taller vegetation in previously sparsely vegetated areas, which also lowers albedo.

The current issue we have is 100% about over population, we need to stop this, but our National, Green and Labour party don't want to tackle this issue at all, in fact our government wants to make it easier to breed than to not.

Want a solution, there it is, stop increasing the population. World wide one child policy.

Last edited by dickytim; 24th May 2019 at 8:13 am.
Reason: remove political devide where there is none.

Although Hillman has not flown for more than 20 years as part of a personal commitment to reducing carbon emissions, he is now scornful of individual action which he describes as “as good as futile”. By the same logic, says Hillman, national action is also irrelevant “because Britain’s contribution is minute. Even if the government were to go to zero carbon it would make almost no difference.”

Instead, says Hillman, the world’s population must globally move to zero emissions across agriculture, air travel, shipping, heating homes – every aspect of our economy – and reduce our human population too. Can it be done without a collapse of civilisation? “I don’t think so,” says Hillman. “Can you see everyone in a democracy volunteering to give up flying? Can you see the majority of the population becoming vegan? Can you see the majority agreeing to restrict the size of their families?”

Hillman doubts that human ingenuity can find a fix and says there is no evidence that greenhouse gases can be safely buried. But if we adapt to a future with less – focusing on Hillman’s love and music – it might be good for us. “And who is ‘we’?” asks Hillman with a typically impish smile. “Wealthy people will be better able to adapt but the world’s population will head to regions of the planet such as northern Europe which will be temporarily spared the extreme effects of climate change. How are these regions going to respond? We see it now. Migrants will be prevented from arriving. We will let them drown.”

Is he a realist or a pessimist?

Hillman accuses all kinds of leaders – from religious leaders to scientists to politicians – of failing to honestly discuss what we must do to move to zero-carbon emissions. “I don’t think they can because society isn’t organised to enable them to do so. Political parties’ focus is on jobs and GDP, depending on the burning of fossil fuels.”

Without hope, goes the truism, we will give up. And yet optimism about the future is wishful thinking, says Hillman. He believes that accepting that our civilisation is doomed could make humanity rather like an individual who recognises he is terminally ill. Such people rarely go on a disastrous binge; instead, they do all they can to prolong their lives.

Can civilisation prolong its life until the end of this century? “It depends on what we are prepared to do.” He fears it will be a long time before we take proportionate action to stop climatic calamity. “Standing in the way is capitalism. Can you imagine the global airline industry being dismantled when hundreds of new runways are being built right now all over the world? It’s almost as if we’re deliberately attempting to defy nature. We’re doing the reverse of what we should be doing, with everybody’s silent acquiescence, and nobody’s batting an eyelid.”

I have a nagging doubt that Extinction Rebellion, despite it widespread global growth will not be enough. But I suppose we need to try what we can.

I have been thinking about what I have done consciously or subconsciously since the Scientists Warning in 1992.

1: Had no children, by not adding to the population root cause
2: Stayed in the same place for 25 years - not ever and ever bigger places
3: Bought only 5 cars in 32 years and only drive sparingly (about 3 times a week now)
4: Buy only electronic and electric appliances only when necessary, irrepairable
5: Only have 6 computers in 40+ years, making them last a long time
6: Never buy too much food, that some gets thrown away
7: Buy mostly only stuff when replacements are required, making things last as long as possible.

I'd say I have been doing my part, and the biggest one above would have been not adding to the consumer population. Funny how things work into your head, as I suspect the seed for that was sewn into my brain in the 1970s when I read about the coming population explosion.

Last edited by KiwiTT; 24th May 2019 at 11:16 am.
Reason: spelling fixes

The only thing that will solve the issues we have is when we stop looking to government to mandate change and the whole world decides as individuals to change.

To think a government can affect this change is just naďve. To actually make a difference the policies would be more than even the Greens can swallow, any government that implemented them would be out in a second.

Just try to talk about managing breeding for example and see how quickly you are labelled and pigeon holed.

Just try to talk about managing breeding for example and see how quickly you are labelled and pigeon holed.

Agreed. Every time I brought up the fact that we have too many people, I am regularly attacked by comments that say, "Well you go first!" and none of them want to address the selfishness of their own act of choosing to have too many children in a finite world. Even in this thread, I was attacked for this point of view. I suspect mainly because they know I am probably right, and dont want defend their own decision to have them.

Is he a realist or a pessimist?I have a nagging doubt that Extinction Rebellion, despite it widespread global growth will not be enough. But I suppose we need to try what we can.

I have been thinking about what I have done consciously or subconsciously since the Scientists Warning in 1992.

1: Had no children, by not adding to the population root cause
2: Stayed in the same place for 25 years - not ever and ever bigger places
3: Bought only 5 cars in 32 years and only drive sparingly (about 3 times a week now)
4: Buy only electronic and electric appliances only when necessary, irrepairable
5: Only have 6 computers in 40+ years, making them last a long time
6: Never buy too much food, that some gets thrown away
7: Buy mostly only stuff when replacements are required, making things last as long as possible.

I'd say I have been doing my part, and the biggest one above would have been not adding to the consumer population. Funny how things work into your head, as I suspect the seed for that was sewn into my brain in the 1970s when I read about the coming population explosion.

Am I supposed to believe that the guy who said this made the choice not to have kids for the sake of the planet? It was only 10 years ago that you were posting that you didn’t believe it. Now you are saying that you’ve been doing eco friendly things for 30 years. Excuse me for being sceptical.

Am I supposed to believe that the guy who said this made the choice not to have kids for the sake of the planet? It was only 10 years ago that you were posting that you didn’t believe it. Now you are saying that you’ve been doing eco friendly things for 30 years. Excuse me for being sceptical.

As I said "subconsciously". Who really knows how the mind works.

However, being 'skeptical or not believing' in 'man-made' global warming caused by CO2 (likely because I had not researched the subject sufficiently enough back then), does not mean I could not see all the other damage humans have been doing to the planet (I made a list of those in this thread a while back). It was probably enough information for me to know we may already have enough humans. In a sense I am probably a lot like Vulcan in that I see more than CO2 as being a problem and there is a lot more pollution in the world caused by humans.

So yeah, I can say have been doing eco-friendly things for 30+ years, for all the other reasons other than CO2 effects.

I note, you have diverted the discussion away from why you chose to have children since 1992 and increase your carbon footprint significantly. Did you think what impact your children would have on the planet in their lifetimes?

One extra child per parent doubles your carbon footprint, especially western children. Let alone how many children they choose to have on top of that. Yes, children are all well and good, but, it has to be said they are a major source of environmental impact regardless, especially western ones.